At the Catholic school that's part of my newspaper beat, the homily for the graduation mass before commencement (the parish has a K-12 school) was focused on the readings of Acts 23, Paul's "appeal to Caesar" pericope, and John 21, Jesus' charge to Peter to "feed my lambs."
And, yeah, both of these are surely imaginary.
I've already spoken about Acts 23, in context that from Paul's arrest on, the rest of the book is almost certainly non-historical. (That's not to imply that Acts 1-22 has high historicity, just that the conclusion is even worse.)
John 21? We all know it was added later, but how much later? If John 1:19-John 20, the likely original core (less editing battles over John 6 and of course no John 7:53-8:11, which itself probably originally began with today's John 8:3) was written around 100, then John 21 didn't get added — even if written earlier — than what, 125?
The editorial note:
18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”
Would also indicated a date well after 100. The Letter of Clement's comment about Peter is much vaguer, per 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.
and if we presuppose traditional date of circa 100, and with John not being written from anywhere near Rome, you have some time later. If one takes a later date for Clement, per discussion, then, at least fir this being attached to John, it's post-150.
Of course, this didn't happen either. There was NO Neronian persecution of Christians after the Fire of Rome; that's almost certainly an interpolation. And, no early tradition mentions Peter killed by Jews.
No comments:
Post a Comment